Chapter 6 comments
6.6 Administration of a Large Technology Transfer Office

We welcome your comments on 6.6 Administration of a Large Technology Transfer Office.

We present quantitative and qualitative evidence on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices (TTOs). Our empirical results suggest that TTO activity is characterized by constant returns to scale and that environmental and
institutional factors explain some of the variation in performance. Productivity may also depend on organizational practices. Unfortunately, there are no quantitative measures available on such practices, so we rely on inductive, qualitative methods
to identify them. Based on 55 interviews of 98 entrepreneurs, scientists, and administrators at five research universities, we conclude that the most critical organizational factors are faculty reward systems, TTO staffing/compensation practices, and cultural barriers between universities and firms.

University research and technology transfer to entrepreneurial companies is important and
increasing. However, no single document summarizes the ways in which university technology
interactions with entrepreneurial firms differ from those with large, established organizations.
This article reviews and summarizes the findings of existing research on this topic with the goal
of presenting this information in a form useful to practitioners in those two domains.
The article focuses on four dimensions of university–entrepreneurial firm collaboration:
(1) industry-sponsored contract research, (2) consulting, (3) technology licensing and (4)technology development and commercialization. These four topics were selected because practitioners on both sides of the interaction consider them both important to understand and fundamentally different for entrepreneurial firms as compared to large, established firms.
To date, observers have identified six different ways in which university–entrepreneurial firm interaction may differ from university–large firm interaction in contract research.

The manner in which the federal government works with the private
sector in developing and diffusing technologies changed in fundamental
ways with passage of the Bayh-Dole, Stevenson-Wydler, and
Federal Technology Transfer Acts in the 1980s. The agencies and the
private sector began to find ways to partner in the development of
technologies that both furthered agency missions and advanced the
competitiveness of industry and the strength of our economy. Many
successful partnerships have been built and many technologies that had
their inception in the federal laboratories have now become important
parts of the commercial technology base.
The Office of Technology Policy is pleased to provide this review of agency
and private sector activities under these laws, pursuant to the Stevenson-
Wydler Act. In this report, we take a careful look at the ways in which the
Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) authority
and the patent licensing authority are being used by the agencies. The
breadth and complexity of the federal research establishment and the wide
variety of partnerships formed with the private sector make it difficult to
provide a simple overview of the federal technology transfer system.
Indeed, that is one of the major insights to be gained from the report—that
the generic procedures for partnering and licensing provided by the
federal laws have taken on different shapes as they have been integrated
into the distinctive research missions of the agencies.